The problem here, and one that I've talked about for almost ten years on this blog, is that Kaiser conflates EVERYTHING out there into one big scary Internet monster. And then, unsurprisingly, can't even fully articulate what makes it so scary.

Meanwhile, the Pulitzer Prize winning play Clybourne Park by Bruce Norris is making the regional rounds. Its New York run garnered it a solid A- on Stagegrade, and most regional critics have pretty much confirmed that grade. The play also looks to be going to Broadway.

But if you are interested in two interesting regional dissents you can find them only online.

2 comments:

Thanks for the shout-out, Art, and for the rest of the post, too. I'm struck again and again by the naive faith newspaper readers have in the judgment of editors, and the "vetting" they supposedly apply to their critics. But to be blunt, many print critics - and maybe most - are no more qualified than some guy (like me!) blogging in his pajamas. And to be REALLY, cruelly honest, you'd be surprised how many critical posts have been handed out for political, or even sexual, favors. (Or maybe you wouldn't be so surprised!) In a word, the print "standard" is no standard, really.

Because the proof of a reviewer's ability is really in the pudding, isn't it? Which leads me to the next, deeper secret about print critics (especially theatre ones) - they are generally chosen to flatter the tastes of the paper's audience, or to "position" the paper against a market segment, or what have you. Their true critical ability always takes a back seat to this quality. ALWAYS. Remember, in the bitter end, a newspaper is merely a vehicle for its advertising. And the critic is merely a "feature" of that vehicle. Thus even among highly "qualified" critics, a paper generally chooses one who can preternaturally play up to, rather than challenge, his audience. This is certainly the case at the Globe, and really at the Times, too.

I really enjoyed Clybourne Park at Trinity Rep. To me, the similarities and differences between the characters 50 years apart were so interesting. The blacks are empowered, the women have careers, the straight white male is still pretty much a jerk. ;-( And I also thought it was interesting how people tiptoe around the subject of race until they start saying horrible things about each other.